<p>Xiggi, Clinton was not a 50's, 60's or Western European style liberal. You are being misled by conservative rhetoric and your youth which does not give you actual recollection of when our country had more traditional liberals, not just people labelled so by conservatives for political gain, so you can actually view Clinton as a big spending liberal. </p>
<p>Again you assume Americans (read you) would not support the taxation necessary for cheap educationn. In fact they did so when I was your age.</p>
<p>We can agree that Clinton underspent on education and failed to keep up the interstate highways, that Eisenhauer initiated, to appeal to the prevailing conservative tide. I do think it is most helpful to compare our country to other advnced countries in Western Europe. I agree some people in the US, especially the wealthy, could benefit by less consumption.</p>
<p>PS only libetarians or I would argue misguided conservatives have as their main gripe Bush sends too much. It is the war spending , guy. $10 billion a month starts adding up. BTW $10 billion is 1 million 10,000 tutiton grants and probably on the order of 10 million suubsidized student loans.</p>
<p>As seen from the war spending, this country is unbelievably wealthy or can borrow for what it thinks is impotant, so all the "I sincerly wish we could" repair the interstates, have bullet trains, subsidize student loans, insure the uninsured etc. " is either spin or misguided thinking. These capital goods expenditues would actually make ur country stronger. Tax breaks to the wealthy mainly bids up the price of coastal real estate and fine wines.</p>
<p>not sure that the country is inclined to increase taxes right now, if California is any indication. During last Jun'es election, two propositions lost, badly. One prop would have raised taxes on the wealthy (over $400k) to fund preschool education. The second prop would have funded libraries thru a bond issuance. Both props lost in nearly every county across the state, so the rejection was widespread; the preschool/wealthy tax noes were 61% - rather surprising in our bluest of blue states.</p>
<p>Given how propositions are done in CA, I would draw no conclusions from the defeats without some pretty careful analysis of whethe voters even understood what they were voting on, and what the specifics of the "deal" were.</p>
<p>I do know a great weariness had settled on CA regarding more debt financing.</p>
<p>absolutely true about more debt -- several bond issues have failed over the past few years. But, the loss of the preschool-tax the wealthy initiative was a big surprise to many of the pundits (aka talking heads) since it was Rob Reiner's initiative; the unions were out in full force, and spent big bucks to support it. Only 39% of yes votes is a virtual route.</p>
<p>I agree the county is not in the mood to pay more taxes right now, but eventually it will have to be done. As conservatives liked to use to say" "there is no free lunch". Eventually an individual has to maintain their job skills or their car. Same with your country's physicial and educational infrastructure and resources. Of course we could stop trying to subdue the world miltarily or whatever we are up to. That would help get revenue for other proects..</p>
<p>This is the first time I've read this thread. Yikes, the partisanship in this country infects virtually everything these days. How will we ever get anything done?</p>
<p>The bottom line is that governments manage to support the causes they care about. If that is nation-building - walla! - suddenly there are trillions of dollars available. </p>
<p>If it were to be education, or health care, or lowering the level of poverty, well, they'd find money for it. </p>
<p>Cripe my seriously impoverished city even found tens of millions of dollars for a ferry boat to Canada that nobody wanted to ride. Somebody at the top made it a priority.</p>
<p>And Xiggi, the "blame Clinton" route is so over.</p>
<p>"And Xiggi, the "blame Clinton" route is so over."</p>
<p>Weenie, and so should the "blame whoever discusses Clinton's record!" and the emotional nostalgia for the "good times' be! </p>
<p>There is a difference between "blaming" Clinton and exposing his lackluster record on education to correctly frame a debate. Of course, only if you consider facts relevant.</p>
<p>Rewinding the clock to 1998 and 1999 provides a picture of what any administration had done in the past 15 or 20 years regarding setting the rates of interest on students' loans. Why did students and families -and the media- not clamor for added subsidies when the rates were much higher AND surpluses were available?</p>
<p>Weenie, I agree. However, laws still have to pass in the Congress. That is why it was important to see which element of the DRA had bipartisan support in the past.</p>
<p>"Why did students and families -and the media- not clamor for added subsidies when the rates were much higher AND surpluses were available?"</p>
<p>I am not a Clinton fan (as you know, I think of him as a genocidal murderer and war criminal, and wish he'd spent more time, like Giuliani, with the concubines of his choice). However, to answer your question: state university costs were MUCH lower then than they are now, community college transfers were close to automatic in most states, and the average American family with an income of $52k or so was (adjusting for inflation) slightly wealthier then than today.</p>
<p>It's an issue now because many more people are in need of it.</p>
<p>Again you go back to Clinton's era and point out what he neglected. Hey, great I agree with you. However, why do you defend the current administration just doing the same stuff on a different day? </p>
<p>Why can't the current admin take the bull by the horns and MAKE college possible? We can make war, we can make tax breaks, but we can't help our future by helping more kids go to college, get degrees advance our society in general?</p>
<p>This is where you get me, you have absolutely no expectations of the current administration to do BETTER than the old one. You defend inaction because the previous admin didn't do enough. "See! Bush is just as good as Clinton." Hey? why can't he do better than Clinton?</p>
<p>Our government has no problem deficeit spending, but we have to draw the line on education? We can't spend more on education? Cause Clinton didn't? C'mon, quit defending our current leadership by comparing it to the old one. Why can't they do it if they wanted?</p>
<p>Again, I invite you to read my posts and not jump at conclusions. It is your conclusion that this administration does not do anything positive, not mine. </p>
<p>There are plenty of things I wished our goverment would do to further the progress of education. Alas, most fall in the category of wildly optimistic to entirely unrealistic. For instance, prohibiting the NEA to spend a nickel on lobbying or supporting political candidates would be nice. Humm, yes, really nice, but unrealistic.</p>
<p>"There are plenty of things I wished our goverment would do to further the progress of education. Alas, most fall in the category of wildly optimistic to entirely unrealistic."</p>
<p>Again, you are limited by your rigid adherence to conservative/libertarian ideology and lack of recollection of a more progressive era in US politics. Try not to rely so much on unsubstantiated claims that solutions to problems of educational access for example, which were more successful in our own country, perhaps even in the early days of your lifetime, are so "wildly optimistic or "entirely unrealistic".</p>
<p>Barrons.... :) Gee that was quite a stretch for you. :)</p>
<p>I always forget that teachers are bad. Thanks for reminding me. That jerk science teacher who happened to be on the union board, who came in early and stayed late so my kids could score 5 on the ap chem exams..yea you're right he was a real turd. How dare he want to make a living and be able to send his kids to college. What nerve..</p>
<p>I know I really shouldn't go there, but I really like the image of the NRA lobbying for education reform... what reforms would the NRA want? Would they want teachers to carry concealed or openly? What about students? Would target practice be a mandatory part of the school day, like pledging allegiance is now (in many places)?</p>
<p>Before I became a teacher, I really didn't understand the role of unions in schools. Then I got elected union rep for the faculty and suddenly it was my job to mediate disputes between administration and faculty. Teachers have rights as employees--a fact many parents and principals forget--and unions can make sure that arbitrary actions aren't taken. (I worked in a private school for a while where the principal actually fired a teacher by asking her to hand out the letter explaining why she was leaving so that the students could take it home. The teacher was given a copy and told to open it after the students had left.)</p>
<p>Just wait a second and it will come back that "no, I really support the classroom teacher, not their union.." That has always been the line of crap I get when we talk about all the extras somebody puts in for my kids. These people seem to think the teacher's union is made up of non educators, when in fact the teacher and union member are one in the same. </p>
<p>The day will come when we won't need a union. It will happen when both sides treat each other fairly all the time. Of course the sun will supernova before that..:)</p>